Now I don't think the length was exaggerated by exposure time, I'm starting to think that's how long it really is.
That may be true for the second clip (although it's much harder to see there because of the smaller relative size of the object), but I doubt that's the case in the first, for the reasons I outlined above. After all, it's quite possible that the two clips show two different species of insect.
PS, I looked again at single movie frames of the second clip, and (like the first clip) here too is clear evidence of 'multiple exposures' per frame along the object's trajectory due to the long exposure time. The vertical size of the object also appears larger than it actually is due to both motion blur and overexposure of a well lit object as seen by a camera with a large aperture setting.
Do you happen to know the real frame rate, aperture (equivalent) and particularly the actual exposure time per frame of that motion camera?
PS2 the apparent length of the object varies in different frames, and with it the number of presumed wing beats. This strongly suggests variations in object speed, and hence that the animal's real length is only a fraction of its apparent length.
